• 56 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for rabbitearsblog
#1 Posted by Rabbitearsblog (6717 posts) - - Show Bio

With so much hate going on in the world and so much fighting with other countries, will we ever have a time where all the countries got along with each other and there will no longer be any fighting among ourselves?

Avatar image for royal_warrior
#2 Posted by Royal_Warrior (5059 posts) - - Show Bio

Not whilst we have free will

Or if aliens invade but then again we'd either be dead or uniting to fight so wouldn't exactly call it peace

Avatar image for judasnixon
#3 Posted by judasnixon (12663 posts) - - Show Bio

No Caption Provided
Avatar image for chronicplane
#4 Posted by Chronicplane (9014 posts) - - Show Bio
No Caption Provided

Avatar image for valorknight
#5 Posted by ValorKnight (12308 posts) - - Show Bio

No, the idea of world peace is paradoxical.

Avatar image for rabbitearsblog
#6 Posted by Rabbitearsblog (6717 posts) - - Show Bio

Not whilst we have free will

Or if aliens invade but then again we'd either be dead or uniting to fight so wouldn't exactly call it peace

LOL!

Avatar image for leem724
#7 Posted by LeeM724 (623 posts) - - Show Bio

No, people will always find something to disagree with.

Also war = money so some countries will be eager to stir up conflict to profit (*cough* USA *cough*)

Avatar image for heroup2112
#8 Posted by HeroUp2112 (18254 posts) - - Show Bio

Not whilst we have free will

Or if aliens invade but then again we'd either be dead or uniting to fight so wouldn't exactly call it peace

Pretty much.

Avatar image for batman242
#9 Posted by Batman242 (11493 posts) - - Show Bio

Free will means that people do as they please.

Morals are subjective and each person's views differs from one another.

Peace is a sham.

Avatar image for rabbitearsblog
#10 Posted by Rabbitearsblog (6717 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for itouchedtheboat
#11 Edited by ITouchedTheBoat (3390 posts) - - Show Bio

it's in human nature to fight against one another. We're a competitive species.

Avatar image for deactivated-5bc57690a1c7d
#12 Posted by deactivated-5bc57690a1c7d (908 posts) - - Show Bio

No sadly.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b59f8ae5ebaf
#13 Posted by deactivated-5b59f8ae5ebaf (2019 posts) - - Show Bio

nope from the moment men were born we try to kill each other

doesnt mean we should give into chaos though

Avatar image for deactivated-5b59f8ae5ebaf
#14 Posted by deactivated-5b59f8ae5ebaf (2019 posts) - - Show Bio

wait what if we all smoked a blunt at the same time

lmao

Avatar image for marvelanddcfan24
#15 Posted by MarvelandDCfan24 (7309 posts) - - Show Bio

Not probable.

Avatar image for willpayton
#16 Posted by willpayton (22081 posts) - - Show Bio

Not while humans are humans

Avatar image for vertigo-
#17 Posted by Vertigo- (17722 posts) - - Show Bio

Nope

Avatar image for Pokeysteve
#18 Posted by Pokeysteve (12018 posts) - - Show Bio

Not in our lifetime.

Avatar image for tjd2814
#19 Posted by TJD2814 (509 posts) - - Show Bio

Not till trumple and rocket man kick off WWIII! Its all part of agent oranges plan to save the 🌎

Avatar image for deactivated-5aba78567e8b5
#20 Posted by deactivated-5aba78567e8b5 (4502 posts) - - Show Bio

Not with fanatic leftists running around

Avatar image for rabbitearsblog
#21 Edited by Rabbitearsblog (6717 posts) - - Show Bio

@tjd2814 said:

Not till trumple and rocket man kick off WWIII! Its all part of agent oranges plan to save the 🌎

Yep.

Avatar image for greysentinel365
#22 Posted by Greysentinel365 (6165 posts) - - Show Bio

Not with fanatic leftists running around

Avatar image for masterskywalker
#23 Posted by MasterSkywalker (3609 posts) - - Show Bio

No

Avatar image for rabbitearsblog
#24 Posted by Rabbitearsblog (6717 posts) - - Show Bio

I guess the closest you can get to world peace if is people learn to communicate with each other, but that won't happen...

Avatar image for deactivated-5b2121a0a9a00
#25 Posted by deactivated-5b2121a0a9a00 (10000 posts) - - Show Bio

Nope.

Avatar image for the_wspanialy
#26 Posted by the_wspanialy (4000 posts) - - Show Bio

Nope.

Avatar image for slimj87d
#27 Posted by slimj87d (15637 posts) - - Show Bio

Humans are not peaceful by nature.

Avatar image for monsterstomp
#28 Posted by MonsterStomp (36748 posts) - - Show Bio

I wonder if there has ever been a single moment in time where fighting world wide just ceased. Even for a split second.

Avatar image for rabbitearsblog
#29 Posted by Rabbitearsblog (6717 posts) - - Show Bio

I wonder if there has ever been a single moment in time where fighting world wide just ceased. Even for a split second.

I wish that was the case.

Avatar image for lord_spectrum
#30 Posted by Lord_Spectrum (4244 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for stellatedcolt
#31 Posted by StellatedColt (887 posts) - - Show Bio

Never.

Avatar image for the_impersonator
#32 Posted by The Impersonator (8477 posts) - - Show Bio

Nope.

Avatar image for Penguin-Dust
#33 Posted by PenguinDust (8905 posts) - - Show Bio

How boring would that be?

Avatar image for _gaff_
#34 Posted by _Gaff_ (5107 posts) - - Show Bio

"we will never have world peace but we must never stop fighting for it"

I think Gandhi said this.

Avatar image for cable_extreme
#35 Posted by Cable_Extreme (16789 posts) - - Show Bio

It is never going to happen, people are too imperfect.

Avatar image for deactivated-5bb52f8f25413
#36 Posted by deactivated-5bb52f8f25413 (7026 posts) - - Show Bio

No. But I really want everyone to just get along.

Avatar image for fitnesstribesman13
#37 Edited by FitnessTribesman13 (1621 posts) - - Show Bio

@_gaff_ said:

"we will never have world peace but we must never stop fighting for it"

I think Gandhi said this.

This.

(the paragraph below isn't directed to you, but the thread as a while)

There will always be bad apples. Also, I object the claim that violence is "human nature" according to some folks here. As far as I'm concerned, the vast majority of folks aren't what I'd consider "violent." I very rarely see random folks in public suddenly go berserk and assault me or each other as if they're wild beasts who rely purely upon instincts. Usually, the kind of folks who act like this are mentally unstable/ill or are of poor character. Now if one mentions warfare, I'd argue that corrupt and militant, jingoistic political figures and systems are most responsible for this.

Avatar image for agenthercules
#38 Posted by AgentHercules (13 posts) - - Show Bio

Of course not. It's just impossible because of things like religion, and different viewpoints of government. We have people like Kim Jong-Un and Fidel Castro running countries the wrong way, there's no way we can hope to sustain a global peace. That's not even touching the totally unstable Middle East.

Avatar image for fitnesstribesman13
#39 Posted by FitnessTribesman13 (1621 posts) - - Show Bio

I'd also like to add that the vast majority of folks tend to become emotionally distressed/traumatized when attempting to take such violent measures against other folks. That's another reason I'm against the idea that it's "human nature" to be violent. So many folks, including me would hesitate to inflict harm due to emotional barriers and if we do harm someone or worse (murder), I'm positive I'd at least become quite distressed emotionally and that goes for so many folks.

Avatar image for khael
#40 Posted by Khael (15331 posts) - - Show Bio

As long as there's this thing called "difference"

There will always be conflict.

Avatar image for silkyballfro94
#41 Posted by silkyballfro94 (8674 posts) - - Show Bio

Petty human. When will you learn?

Avatar image for rabbitearsblog
#42 Posted by Rabbitearsblog (6717 posts) - - Show Bio

Of course not. It's just impossible because of things like religion, and different viewpoints of government. We have people like Kim Jong-Un and Fidel Castro running countries the wrong way, there's no way we can hope to sustain a global peace. That's not even touching the totally unstable Middle East.

I thought he died last year?

@_gaff_ said:

"we will never have world peace but we must never stop fighting for it"

I think Gandhi said this.

This.

(the paragraph below isn't directed to you, but the thread as a while)

There will always be bad apples. Also, I object the claim that violence is "human nature" according to some folks here. As far as I'm concerned, the vast majority of folks aren't what I'd consider "violent." I very rarely see random folks in public suddenly go berserk and assault me or each other as if they're wild beasts who rely purely upon instincts. Usually, the kind of folks who act like this are mentally unstable/ill or are of poor character. Now if one mentions warfare, I'd argue that corrupt and militant, jingoistic political figures and systems are most responsible for this.

I also agree that violence isn't exactly "human nature." Hate is apart of human nature and that could lead to violence.

Avatar image for agenthercules
#43 Posted by AgentHercules (13 posts) - - Show Bio

@rabbitearsblog: He did, but one of his kin took over. Regardless, there are always men like him.

Avatar image for giliad_
#44 Posted by GIliad_ (6639 posts) - - Show Bio
@_gaff_ said:

"we will never have world peace but we must never stop fighting for it"

I think Gandhi said this.

There will always be bad apples. Also, I object the claim that violence is "human nature" according to some folks here. As far as I'm concerned, the vast majority of folks aren't what I'd consider "violent." I very rarely see random folks in public suddenly go berserk and assault me or each other as if they're wild beasts who rely purely upon instincts. Usually, the kind of folks who act like this are mentally unstable/ill or are of poor character. Now if one mentions warfare, I'd argue that corrupt and militant, jingoistic political figures and systems are most responsible for this.

I disagree. The question here can be rephrased to equate to Darwin's (the father of evolution) problem. Taking characteristics that he named; "the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy" he proposed that the most courageous individuals and therefore, the most willing to risk their own health for another, would be at a disadvantage. Individuals possessing these characteristics to high degrees would resultantly have reduced chance of survival and reproduction resulting in these characteristics being removed from a species. However, that simply is not the case. In many species, mammals, in particular, these traits are widespread and admired. For good reason. These selfless traits make us far better social creatures. And humans, are if nothing else social creatures. Our prosperous survival can be attributed to are incredible tendency to form complex and effective groups. But the question then becomes; that, if this is the case, why does selfishness still exist. Considering the dependence upon societies, how can characteristics that do not benefit the community but purely the individual remain?

Darwin's answer; taking into account how successful we are as societies our greatest threat is, of course, other societies. To continue to survive as a group we must be able to compete with other groups for finite resources. Darwin proposed that we have two instincts. One which makes us better socialisers and allows us to be more effective as a team. I suppose this could be called morality. The other explains our primal instincts. Greed, jealousy, aggression and capacity for violence. All natural products of intraspecific competition. Because these traits are just as essential to the survival of both the group and the individual.

Our history as a species can go a long way to explaining the existence of morals and instinctual reactions and how they relate. Simply because you do not perceive that people are guided solely by instinct does not go to prove it's absence alongside altruistic characteristics. Simply put;

we are angels and demons, angels to those on our side, demons to those on the other

Not In God's Name by Jonathan Sacks (who's work almost entirely inspired this response)
Avatar image for fitnesstribesman13
#45 Edited by FitnessTribesman13 (1621 posts) - - Show Bio

@giliad_ said:

I disagree. The question here can be rephrased to equate to Darwin's (the father of evolution) problem. Taking characteristics that he named; "the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy" he proposed that the most courageous individuals and therefore, the most willing to risk their own health for another, would be at a disadvantage. Individuals possessing these characteristics to high degrees would resultantly have reduced chance of survival and reproduction resulting in these characteristics being removed from a species. However, that simply is not the case. In many species, mammals, in particular, these traits are widespread and admired. For good reason. These selfless traits make us far better social creatures. And humans, are if nothing else social creatures. Our prosperous survival can be attributed to are incredible tendency to form complex and effective groups. But the question then becomes; that, if this is the case, why does selfishness still exist. Considering the dependence upon societies, how can characteristics that do not benefit the community but purely the individual remain?

Sure, I can see folks becoming more individualistic in certain societies depending on the circumstances. There are still societies today where folks are not as individualistic as others in terms of survival, especially hunter-gatherer societies.

I'd attribute the prevalence of individual benefit to societies that can afford it, especially modernized, urban societies where collectivism is less vital for survival. Nevertheless, collectivism to benefit the community is definitely not entirely absent from these types of societies. For instance, taxes are prevalent in modern societies and are meant to benefit the whole community in several ways. Then of course, you have plenty of folks who contribute to the whole community through voluntary means, such as charity and volunteer work.

Darwin's answer; taking into account how successful we are as societies our greatest threat is, of course, other societies. To continue to survive as a group we must be able to compete with other groups for finite resources. Darwin proposed that we have two instincts. One which makes us better socialisers and allows us to be more effective as a team. I suppose this could be called morality. The other explains our primal instincts. Greed, jealousy, aggression and capacity for violence. All natural products of intraspecific competition. Because these traits are just as essential to the survival of both the group and the individual.

Speaking of Darwin, he did address this issue:

"He (Darwin) pointed at how in numberless animal societies (such as humans and ants), the struggle between separate individuals for the means of existence disappears, how struggle is replaced by cooperation, and how that substitution results in the development of intellectual and moral faculties which secure to the species the best conditions for survival. He intimated that in such cases the fittest are not the physically strongest, nor the cunningest, but those who learn to combine so as to mutually support each other, strong and weak alike, for the welfare of the community."

He seems to agree that competing with your own species in a barbaric manner is actually an inferior method of survival. Instead, we should support each other, thus we should never quit striving for world peace and diplomacy despite the impossibilities. I certainly agree as well. I'd much rather live in a world free of detrimental violence and savagery where we all can deal with each other in a civilized manner instead.

Our history as a species can go a long way to explaining the existence of morals and instinctual reactions and how they relate. Simply because you do not perceive that people are guided solely by instinct does not go to prove it's absence alongside altruistic characteristics. Simply put;

we are angels and demons, angels to those on our side, demons to those on the other

Not In God's Name by Jonathan Sacks (who's work almost entirely inspired this response)

I'm not denying that instincts may exist in some folks naturally. However, I'm not sure if it's something inherently all folks possess or not. I do not think so thus far, since it's obvious that the vast majority of folks will not react violently to each other for no good reason.

Otherwise, I'd claim it's in our nature. I did address this in another one of my comments:

I'd also like to add that the vast majority of folks tend to become emotionally distressed/traumatized when attempting to take such violent measures against other folks. That's another reason I'm against the idea that it's "human nature" to be violent. So many folks, including me would hesitate to inflict harm due to emotional barriers and if we do harm someone or worse (murder), I'm positive I'd at least become quite distressed emotionally and that goes for so many folks.

But of course, there are always the defective minority (the "bad guys/villains") within humanity and the same goes for all other species as well (not so much in terms of morality though). Just like there are always a few bad apples.

Even if you could prove we all inherit such instincts, I find it obvious that we can effortlessly overcome our primal instincts due to our level of sapience, well beyond all other species currently existing on this planet.

Avatar image for fangdanerd
#46 Posted by FangDaNerd (1616 posts) - - Show Bio

Maybe we will get to a point when every country aren't trying to kill each other but crime will never stop.

Avatar image for dextersinister1
#47 Edited by Dextersinister1 (1257 posts) - - Show Bio

Almost certainly unless things regress.

All you negative nancies are looking at events in a internet world where you expect things to happen quickly.

The life for the average person in the world has improved dramatically, leaps and bounds in the last 100 years.

Avatar image for helloman
#48 Posted by Helloman (29574 posts) - - Show Bio

Maybe.

Avatar image for deactivated-5c07a0327fd39
#49 Posted by deactivated-5c07a0327fd39 (4596 posts) - - Show Bio

Only when we are no longer plural.

Avatar image for giliad_
#50 Posted by GIliad_ (6639 posts) - - Show Bio

@fitnesstribesman13:

Sure, I can see folks becoming more individualistic in certain societies depending on the circumstances. There are still societies today where folks are not as individualistic as others in terms of survival, especially hunter-gatherer societies.

I'd attribute the prevalence of individual benefit to societies that can afford it, especially modernized, urban societies where collectivism is less vital for survival. Nevertheless, collectivism to benefit the community is definitely not entirely absent from these types of societies. For instance, taxes are prevalent in modern societies and are meant to benefit the whole community in several ways. Then of course, you have plenty of folks who contribute to the whole community through voluntary means, such as charity and volunteer work.

See, I'd speculate that self-centred behaviour in all its many forms is a modern expression of our tendency to display the most favourable and impressive traits for breeding. Drawing parallels to our primate relatives, the alpha-male - the biggest, strongest and quickest to retaliate - is top dog. This is common among most pack mammals. Individualistic traits nowadays; taking the pursuit of wealth as an example; are an extension of these natural instincts. Our desire to outcompete our fellow man. Owning your own property, car, good job and disposable income all at a fundamental level communicate stability. A stable life is a good investment for a potential mating partner. Which brings me on to the final part of your post.

I'm not denying that instincts may exist in some folks naturally. However, I'm not sure if it's something inherently all folks possess or not. I do not think so thus far, since it's obvious that the vast majority of folks will not react violently to each other for no good reason.

Otherwise, I'd claim it's in our nature. I did address this in another one of my comments:

I'd also like to add that the vast majority of folks tend to become emotionally distressed/traumatized when attempting to take such violent measures against other folks. That's another reason I'm against the idea that it's "human nature" to be violent. So many folks, including me would hesitate to inflict harm due to emotional barriers and if we do harm someone or worse (murder), I'm positive I'd at least become quite distressed emotionally and that goes for so many folks.

But of course, there are always the defective minority (the "bad guys/villains") within humanity and the same goes for all other species as well (not so much in terms of morality though). Just like there are always a few bad apples.

Even if you could prove we all inherit such instincts, I find it obvious that we can effortlessly overcome our primal instincts due to our level of sapience, well beyond all other species currently existing on this planet.

I think the problem here is we both have different interpretations of primal instincts. You've taken a very explicit outlook; you reference violence. However, that's not how I see it. The everyday human's mannerism isn't savage or barbaric. We don't indiscriminately attempt to physically dominate who we see as a threat. We are not hunter-gatherers anymore. Society has evolved and it outlaws such behaviour. As society changes so do the way our instincts are expressed in society. We don't overcome our instincts we integrate them. The root explanation for much of our behaviours today can, in some conceivable way, be explained by our evolutionary history. Many of them link to our need to appear a certain way. Our primal nature still plays a part in our everyday lives to this day, it just doesn't look the same.

Regardless how can you deny that hostility isn't in our nature when it is so prevalent? You and Darwin may agree that a single collective society working for the benefit of the whole may be more effective but humans simply do not allow that to happen. Let me ask; Have you ever experienced mob mentality? One of the best anecdotes I can come up with is Football (Soccer if you're from the states). I have been to A LOT of matches at Anfield (Liverpool FC) and I can't count the number of times there's I've seen a scrap after the game (and during). Fans are separated into Home and Away stands for fear of their safety. With football more than most sports; you can see humans at their worst. We habitually form communities and just as easily form an "us vs them" mentality. It's why there's so much violence associated with the sport. And when there are a hundred more lads around you shouting and getting fired up you start joining them. There are a million other things that show the same thing.

I don't think it's deniable that it's in our nature, in varying capacities, show hostility towards other groups.